Progressive changes in descriptive discourse in First Episode Schizophrenia: a longitudinal computational semantics study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational semantics, a branch of computational linguistics, involves automated meaning analysis that relies on how words occur together in natural language. This offers a promising tool to study schizophrenia. At present, we do not know if these word-level choices in speech are sensitive to the illness stage (i.e., acute untreated vs. stable established state), track cognitive deficits in major domains (e.g., cognitive control, processing speed) or relate to established dimensions of formal thought disorder. In this study, we collected samples of descriptive discourse in patients experiencing an untreated first episode of schizophrenia and healthy control subjects (246 samples of 1-minute speech; n = 82, FES = 46, HC = 36) and used a co-occurrence based vector embedding of words to quantify semantic similarity in speech. We obtained six-month follow-up data in a subsample (99 speech samples, n = 33, FES = 20, HC = 13). At baseline, semantic similarity was evidently higher in patients compared to healthy individuals, especially when social functioning was impaired; but this was not related to the severity of clinically ascertained thought disorder in patients. Across the study sample, higher semantic similarity at baseline was related to poorer Stroop performance and processing speed. Over time, while semantic similarity was stable in healthy subjects, it increased in patients, especially when they had an increasing burden of negative symptoms. Disruptions in word-level choices made by patients with schizophrenia during short 1-min descriptions are sensitive to interindividual differences in cognitive and social functioning at first presentation and persist over the early course of the illness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".